HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-2020-239
IN RE: ESTATE OF OWEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
EUGENE MEALS, SR. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS COURT DIVISION
No. 21-20-0239
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
st
HYAMS, J., May 1, 2023.
On March 9, 2023, Appellant, the Estate of Owen Eugene Meals, Sr. (hereinafter the
Estate), filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania following a February 17, 2023 Order
of Court directing Respondent Norma Jane Smith (hereinafter Ms. Smith) to pay $6,600.00 in
reasonable attorneys fees to the Estate. This opinion in support of the Courts order is written
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The decedent in this case, Owen Eugene Meals, Sr. (hereinafter Decedent), died on January
23, 2020, leaving his personal residence at 1501 Shirley Avenue, Carlisle, Pennsylvania to Ms.
1
Smith and the rest of his property to his son, Owen E. Meals, Jr. (hereinafter Mr. Meals).
A dispute arose between Mr. Meals and Ms. Smith when Mr. Meals requested to remove his
inherited property from the home that was bequeathed to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith took issue with his
2
request because she had resided in that home for at least 15 years and had accumulated property of
her own amidst the property that now belonged to the Estate. There was also a dispute as to whether
certain items requested by Mr. Meals were actually present in the home.
The resistance by Ms. Smith to allow Mr. Meals in his role as executor to examine or remove
the contents of the home resulted in Mr. Meals filing three separate petitions to gain access to the
property, to remove personal property belonging to the estate, and to determine ownership of
3
disputed personal property. Ultimately, as a result of her actions to impede the ability of Mr. Meals
1
See Last Will and Testament of Owen E. Meals, Sr., dated October 3, 2016, filed February 25, 2020 (hereinafter
). The Decedents Will also names Mr. Meals the Executor of the Estate. See
Item VII.
2
Opinion and Order of Court, dated July 1, 2022.
3
Estates Emergency Petition Seeking Issuance of a Special and Preliminary Injunction, filed May 20, 2020;
Estates Petition to Remove Personal Property From 1501 Shirley Avenue and For Return of Missing Property, filed
August 2, 2020; Estates Petition for Adjudication of Personal Property Claims and for Costs and Contempt of Court
Orders, filed March 8, 2021.
to effectively review, appraise, and remove property belonging to the Estate, the Court ordered Ms.
4
Smith to pay a sum of $2,000.00 based on her contempt.
The Court also ordered that Ms. Smith was to pay the reasonable attorneys fees associated
with the Estates Petition for Adjudication of Personal Property Claims and for Costs and Contempt
of Court Orders (hereinafter the Petition for Adjudication), and gave the parties 60 days to
5
negotiate the amount. Having failed to reach an agreement, a hearing was held on December 8,
6
2022, on the limited topic of the reasonable attorneys fees relevant to the Petition for Adjudication.
At the hearing, Steven Grubb, Esquire (hereinafter Attorney Grubb) testified in support of the
Estate and discussed the invoice for legal fees and costs that his firm, Salzmann Hughes, P.C.,
7
submitted to the Estate for payment totaling $65,687.58. In support of Ms. Smith, testimony was
provided by Michael Scherer, Esquire and Andrew Sheely, Esquire to oppose the assertion that the
8
legal fees requested were reasonable.
9
Following the hearing, the Court permitted the parties to file post-hearing briefs. Both the
1011
Estate and Ms. Smith filed briefs on January 20, 2023, and reply briefs on January 27, 2023.
On February 17, 2023, the Court issued an Order of Court awarding the Estate reasonable
12
attorneys fees in the amount of $6,600.00 to be paid by Ms. Smith within 120 days. In doing so,
the Court concluded that the Estates submission of $65,687.58 in attorneys fees and costs was
13
manifestly excessive and patently unreasonable. The Estate filed its timely notice of appeal on
14
March 9, 2023, and its Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal (hereinafter
15
Concise Statement) on March 24, 2023.
The grounds for the appeal expressed by the Estate in its Concise Statement are as follows:
4
Opinion and Order of Court, dated July 1, 2022.
5
Id.
6
In re: Estate of Owen Eugene Meals, Sr., No. 21-20-0239, Hearing Tr. 3:1-13, Dec. 8, 2022.
7
Id. 10:17-22; 52:7-8.
8
Id. 33:6-22; 36:19-37:2; 47:3-12.
9
Id. 57:2-8.
10
See The Estate of Owen Eugene Meals, Sr.s Brief in Support of its Claim for Reasonable Attorneys Fees, filed
Jan. 20, 2023; Brief of Norma Smith Re: Reasonable Legal Fees, filed on Jan. 20, 2023.
11
See The Estate of Owen Eugene Meals, Sr.s Reply Brief in Support of its Claim for Reasonable Attorneys Fees,
filed Jan. 27, 2023; Reply Brief of Norma Smith Re: Reasonable Legal Fees, filed on Jan. 27, 2023.
12
Order of Court, dated Feb. 17, 2023.
13
Id.
14
Notice of Appeal, filed on March 9, 2023.
15
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed on March 24, 2023.
2
1. The Court abused its discretion and committed an error and
misapplication of law in awarding the Estate attorneys fees and costs in the
amount of $6,600.00, which was only approximately ten percent (10%) of the
actual amount the Estate expended on attorneys fees and costs associated
with the Estates Petition for Adjudication of Personal Property Claims and
for Costs and Contempt of Court Orders (the Petition) where:
a. The Courts decision failed to justify a 90% reduction
in the fees and costs it awarded the Estate as a sanction for the
Appellees contempt and further failed to justify the basis for
its award of only $6,600 in attorneys fees and costs for
litigation which spanned approximately two years and
involved pleadings, discovery, two days of evidentiary
hearings, post-hearing property inspections, and briefing;
b. The Court failed to properly consider and rely upon
the legal factors used to assess and award reasonable
attorneys fees;
c. The Courts decision conflicts with, alters and re-casts
findings the Court made in its July 1, 2022 Order and Opinion
which awarded the Estate the reasonable attorneys fees and
costs associated with its Petition; and
d. The Court failed to properly sanction a litigant for
their contempt of court where the litigant in contempt had
been held to have engaged in conduct which constituted
stonewalling and was obdurate, vexatious and dilatory
and went directly to the litigants blocking of the Estates
access to various items of personal property at issue in the
16
case.
DISCUSSION
The Court justified its award of $6,600.00 in reasonable attorneys fees and properly
considered the LaRocca factors in its decision.
The Estate asserts that the Court abused its discretion and committed an error and
misapplication of the law where it failed to justify its award of $6,600.00 in attorneys fees and
failed to properly consider and rely upon the legal factors used to assess and award reasonable
17
\[attorneys\] fees.
With respect to reasonable attorneys fees, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that
the following factors are to be taken into consideration in determining the fee or compensation:
16
Id. at 1-2.
17
Id. For purposes of this Opinion, and given the similarity of the arguments, the Court has addressed both 1(a) and
1(b) of the Concise Statement as a single statement.
3
a. the amount of work performed;
b. the character of the services rendered;
c. the difficulty of the problems involved;
d. the importance of the litigation;
e. the amount of money or value of the property in question;
f. the degree of responsibility incurred;
g. whether the fund involved was created by the attorney;
h. the professional skill and standing of the attorney in his profession;
i. the results he was able to obtain;
j. the ability of the client to pay a reasonable fee for the services
rendered; and,
k. very importantly, the amount of money or the value of the property in
question.
In re LaRoccas Tr. Est., 246 A.2d 337, 339 (Pa. 1968).
In cases where the reasonableness of a fee is at issue, courts have allowed the lower courts
great deference. Carmen Enterprises, Inc. v. Murpenter, LLC, 185 A.3d 380, 395 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2018) (Our standard of review accords the trial court great deference.). See also LaRocca, 246
A.2d at 339; Gilmore by Gilmore v. Dondero, 582 A.2d 1106, 1108-09 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (The
rationale behind this limited scope of review is sound. It is the trial court that has the best
opportunity to judge the attorneys skills, the effort that was required and actually put forth in the
matter at hand, and the value of that effort at the time and place involved.).
In determining reasonable attorneys fees, it is not necessary for the court to address each
and every factor in its decision. Carmen Enterprises, 185 A.3d at 390 (The trial court does not
have to address every LaRocca factor.). Rather, the courts \[c\]onsideration of any one or a
combination of the LaRocca factors may convince the court that a different fee is justified.
Gilmore, 582 A.2d at 1110.
4
Still, it is important to note that here the Court considered all of the LaRocca factors in
18
coming to its decision. In doing so, the February 17, 2023 Order of Court focused on the
factors that were most important to the Court in this case. Specifically, the Court addressed the
following LaRocca factors:
- the amount of work performed (The billing statements demonstrate that
there was an inordinate amount of work performed on this dispute ...);
- the character of the services rendered (The Estate spent an extensive
amount of time in trial preparation, trial attendance and preparing legal
argument on property items that were not awarded to the Estate.);
- the difficulty of the problems involved (The overall case was not
complex ); and
- the amount of money or value of the property in question (The amount of
money and value of the property that one reasonably could presume would
19
be awarded to the Estate was not a large sum.).
The statements above further demonstrate why the Court reduced the fees and costs
awarded to the Estate. Specifically, among other reasons, the Court concluded that there was an
inordinate amount of work performed on this dispute and that an extensive amount of time
was spent in trial preparation, trial attendance and preparing legal argument on property items
20
that were not awarded to the Estate. The Courts conclusion that the Estate created
complexities by seeking several high-priced property items with no evidence demonstrating
21
that \[Ms.\] Smith possessed those items, further serves to justify the reduction in fees and costs
awarded to the Estate.
In light of the Courts proper consideration of the LaRocca factors, as well as the
aforementioned standard of review in cases involving the reasonableness of attorneys fees, the
18
See Order of Court, dated February 17, 2023. As part of its Conclusions, the Court listed all of the LaRocca
factors when it stated which factors were being taken into consideration fees
for the instant matter . Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.
5
Court has properly justified its award of $6,600.00 in attorneys fees to the Estate and has not
abused its discretion. The Estates arguments therefore lack merit.
The Court Properly Considered its July 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court in its Decision on
Reasonable Attorneys Fees.
The Estate argues that the Courts decision conflicts with, alters and re-casts findings the
Court made in its July 1, 2021 \[Opinion and Order\] which awarded the Estate reasonable attorneys
22
fees and costs associated with its Petition \[for Adjudication\]. As explained below, t
argument is without merit.
The Estates assertion fails to consider that the two decisions were based on different issues.
More specifically, the Courts July 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court addressed the merits of the
Petition for Adjudication, and in doing so, focused more on the actions of Ms. Smith and, in
particular, her contempt. On the other hand, the Courts February 17, 2023 Order of Court addressed
the sole issue of reasonable attorneys fees and focused significantly on the relevant actions of the
Estate and its counsel. While there are differences in where the emphasis was placed in each
decision, there is no evidence that the Courts February 17, 2023 Order of Court conflicts with, alters
or recasts any part of the July 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court.
Most importantly, the July 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court orders Ms. Smith to pay
reasonable attorneys fees to the Estate and there is nothing in the Courts February 17, 2023 Order
of Court which conflicts with, alters or recasts that order.
Moreover, as this Court was the author of both the July 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court
and the order at issue here, the Court is confident that it properly considered all of the findings made
in this case when it issued its February 17, 2023 Order of Court.
In light of the above, the Estates argument lacks merit.
The Court Properly Sanctioned Ms. Smith with Respect to the Award of Attorneys Fees.
In the last purported error raised by the Estate, it asserts that the Court failed to properly
sanction Ms. Smith for her contempt where the litigant in contempt had been held to have engaged
in conduct which constituted stonewalling and was obdurate, vexatious and dilatory and went
22
Concise Statement at 2.
6
23
inthe case.
The Estatesassertion regarding the Courtssanctioningof Ms. Smithforcontemptis
misplaced.In sanctioning Ms.Smith for her contempt, the Court ordered that she pay a sum of
24
$2,000.00, as well as the reasonable attorneys fees associated with the Petition for Adjudication.
Both sanctions were part of the CourtsJuly 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court.The Estates
appeal appliesonlytothe Courts February 17, 2023 Orderof Court, which solelyconcernsthe
amount of reasonable attorneysfees to be paid by Ms. Smith.As such, if the Estatewere to take
issue with the sufficiency of theCourtssanctionsagainst Ms. Smith, outside of the specific issue
concerning the amount of reasonable attorneys fees, then the Estateshould have appealedthe
CourtsJuly 1, 2022 Opinion and Order of Court.
To the extent that theEstatesassertion regarding the Courtsanctioningof Ms. Smith
relates only to the amount of reasonable attorneys fees ordered by the Court, thatissue hasalready
been thoroughlyaddressed in this opinion. The Court properly sanctioned Ms. Smith with respect to
the award ofreasonableattorneys fees.
In light of theabove,the final purported errorcomplained ofby the Estate is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Appellant, the Estate of Owen Eugene Meals, Sr.,raised the existence of errors in connection
with the amount of reasonable attorneys fees awarded to the Estate by the Court in its February 17,
2023 Order of Court. However, theCourt has determined that alltheerrors in the Concise Statement
lack merit,and that theaward of attorneys fees was proper.Accordingly,theCourtsFebruary 17,
2023 Order of Court should be affirmed on appeal.
BY THE COURT,
Carrie E. Hyams, J.
23
Id.
24
Opinion and Order of Court, dated July 1, 2022.
7
DISTRIBUTION:
Steven E. Grubb, Esquire
354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1
Carlisle, PA 17015
Michael A. Scherer, Esquire
19 W. South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
8